[HN Gopher] Federal investigators blast Tesla, call for stricter...
___________________________________________________________________
Federal investigators blast Tesla, call for stricter safety
standards
Author : AndrewDucker
Score : 194 points
Date : 2021-03-13 16:20 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| poundofshrimp wrote:
| I think self driving industry just doesn't have enough real world
| data to prove or disprove that AI is better at driving cars than
| humans. The public doesn't need to trust AI engineers any more so
| than it needs to trust airplane engineers. At the end of the day,
| data is what matters.
| hartator wrote:
| Can't help to notice the sudden hate of the administration for
| anything Elon Musk related since the change of administration.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Something strange I have noticed in the last couple years on
| leftist social media is the contempt harbored by some for Musk.
| I can't quite place it but it feels like a mix of envy and a
| hatred of success, in part because he seems like proof that
| capitalism works. I think the emphasis on his character flaws -
| which we all have - is disproportionate and frankly totally
| irrelevant considering the scale of his achievements. But he is
| a centrist not a progressive, he solves problems within the
| framework of capitalism, and he has an aggressive disregard for
| the norms of society. That makes him a target for those who are
| ideologically committed, dislike market driven economies, and
| favor big government/centralized restrictions. Those sentiments
| have increasingly bled into the Democratic Party as it has
| lurched leftward.
|
| I'm not sure if this is it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see
| this administration try to reign him in. And when it happens, I
| wonder how news media and society will perceive it. Will they
| compare it to the relationship between China and Jack Ma? Or
| will they view these actions as virtuous, moral, and therefore
| justified?
| BluSyn wrote:
| If you pay attention it's been created by a carefully
| constructed narrative by certain media outlets. The switch to
| anti-tech and anti-billionaire biases was surprisingly swift,
| and few seemed to even notice. Add to that the complete
| removal of nuance from news reports, and any platforms (eg,
| Clubhouse / Podcasts) that attempt to add in nuance are
| either ignored/treated as fringe, or out-right demonized.
| axguscbklp wrote:
| Didn't Musk grow up in a wealthy family? If so, his success
| isn't much proof that capitalism works meritocratically,
| although it's still evidence that capitalism works. Not that
| I need to be convinced of that, I'm pretty sure already that
| capitalism works better than the known alternatives.
|
| Yeah I definitely agree, some of the hate for Musk comes from
| hate of capitalism and of the wealthy. I think that some of
| it also probably comes from his flirting with 4chan-esque
| trolling, like his talking about the red pill, etc. I think
| it's funny and refreshing but some cultural leftists get
| triggered by it.
|
| I think you can tell I'm not exactly an Elon Musk hater, but
| that said... let's get real, the guy is a con artist. He has
| accomplished a lot of genuine things but he is also a con
| artist.
|
| >I think the emphasis on his character flaws - which we all
| have - is disproportionate and frankly totally irrelevant
| considering the scale of his achievements.
|
| He sells driving assistance technology as "Full Self-
| Driving". I give him full credit for his genuine achievements
| but I'm not going to ignore that he is also a con artist.
| xedeon wrote:
| > Didn't Musk grow up in a wealthy family?
|
| No. That's a false narrative. He arrived in North America
| with $2,000 worth of savings a backpack and a suitcase full
| of books. He also paid his way through college.
|
| According to Ashlee Vance's book: "Elon Musk: Tesla,
| SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future"
| nickik wrote:
| His father was a pretty wealthy engineer and they certainty
| were among the richer people in South Africa.
|
| However, his father didn't like him wanting to go to the US
| so he didn't pay for it. Musk had to work threw university.
|
| Later his father invested some money into Zip2.
|
| > He sells driving assistance technology as "Full Self-
| Driving". I give him full credit for his genuine
| achievements but I'm not going to ignore that he is also a
| con artist.
|
| If you actually buy the car you see an exact description of
| what the feature does currently, what they think it will do
| in a couple of months and that you will get updates in
| order to get full self driving.
|
| The money is not counted as revenue for the company because
| they have not delivered the features.
|
| See from the website:
|
| Full Self-Driving Capability
|
| $10,000 Navigate on Autopilot
| Auto Lane Change Autopark Summon
| Full Self-Driving Computer Traffic Light and Stop
| Sign Control
|
| Coming later this year Autosteer on city
| streets
|
| The currently enabled features require active driver
| supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The
| activation and use of these features are dependent on
| achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as
| demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as
| regulatory approval, which may take longer in some
| jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your
| car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air
| software updates.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You don't need a media conspiracy to tarnish Elon Musk's
| reputation, because Musk is the same man who used his
| platform to reach millions of people and call a literal hero
| who helped save children's lives a pedophile several
| times[1].
|
| [1] https://www.the-sun.com/news/126445/who-is-vernon-
| unsworth-t...
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Yea those insults did seem unfounded and unnecessary. But
| considering his genius, economic success, and positive
| impact on the world, it just doesn't seem anywhere near
| enough to color his overall reputation negatively. Everyone
| has incidents like this in their life where they got mad at
| someone, said things they shouldn't have, etc. To pretend
| otherwise would not just be everyday hubris, but a bold
| faced lie. So is it that every human is irredeemable and
| has a tarnished reputation or can we consider the whole of
| people like Musk and acknowledge that yes, they are
| extraordinary?
| ncallaway wrote:
| My take is that he's extremely good at some things, but
| overall just a mean, vindictive person.
|
| I think we can acknowledge that people are complex
| animals and that someone can be amazing at some things
| and terrible at others.
|
| I think Elon regularly fails to meet my expectations of
| how we should treat other people. He regularly exceeds my
| expectations as the CEO of a launch services company.
| ncallaway wrote:
| I was down voted for this, and I think fairly.
|
| I said Elon was "just a mean, vindictive person", but I
| think that's far broader than I should have said. I think
| that sentence would more fairly read "capable of being a
| mean, vindictive person".
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Everyone has incidents like this in their life where
| they got mad at someone, said things they shouldn't have,
| etc._
|
| It wasn't an isolated incident. Musk called the man a
| pedophile several times over the course of weeks and
| months. Millions of people's only exposure to the person
| who helped save kids' lives was seeing Musk call them a
| pedophile, over and over again, reinforcing the
| accusation.
|
| Also, I have never smeared someone like that, and would
| never consider doing so at all, let alone just because
| they hurt my ego.
| leetcrew wrote:
| pedophilia is a very serious accusation to make. everyone
| makes mistakes, but most of us don't make mistakes like
| that. musk has done some really great things, but it's
| gonna take a bit more to make me forget that he attempted
| to ruin a heroic man's life because he saved the children
| before musk had a chance to deploy his inflatable tube.
| xedeon wrote:
| You must be talking about Vern Unsworth? He's NOT a diver
| and did not rescue anybody. He was a "cave expert".
|
| He was enjoying the limelight and was pretty hostile to
| anyone/anything that was taking the attention away from
| him. He also wanted to make money from it.
|
| Most shockingly. He said "I will make the divers sugger
| [sic] for leaving us out of the loop "
|
| Source (Exhibit 7, Page 49): https://www.courtlistener.com/
| recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137...
|
| When he heard that Elon was offering SpaceX engineering
| resources to the cause. He said on a video interview to
| take the submarine and shove it where the "sun doesn't
| shine" while maniacally laughing.
|
| These are all facts that came to light from his lawsuit.
| Which by the way he lost:
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-wins-defamation-
| suit-b...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/elon-
| musk...
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7887513/vernon-
| unsworth...
|
| https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
| courts/califor...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _You must be talking about Vern Unsworth? He 's NOT a
| diver and did not rescue anybody. He was a "cave
| expert"._
|
| You must be responding to a strawman argument that I
| never made. Please show me where I claimed anything other
| than "he helped save children's lives".
|
| > _He was enjoying the limelight and was pretty hostile
| to anyone /anything that was taking the attention away
| from him. He also wanted to make money from the fame._
|
| Considering that this is exactly what Musk did, I find it
| pretty ironic that his fans have no problem projecting
| that upon people that Musk smears.
|
| > _He said on a video interview to take the submarine and
| shove it where the "sun doesn't shine" while maniacally
| laughing._
|
| Musk forced himself into a high stakes situation where
| literal children's lives were at risk. Instead of
| listening to the experts and officials executing the
| rescue effort, Musk turned the tragedy into a PR event
| and injected himself and his companies into a situation
| that he both wasn't wanted in and was asked not to
| participate in.
|
| When celebrities get involved with disaster scenarios,
| especially when they are not experts in themselves, they
| interfere with rescue efforts because officials often
| trust celebrity advice and interference over that of
| experts[1].
|
| Had officials delegated to Musk's celebrity and his
| impractical "submarine", the children would have died.
| Why? Because the submarine was physically unable to
| navigate the sharp turns[2] that were required to reach
| the children and get them out.
|
| Unsworth, an expert and participant in the effort, used
| much kinder words than I would have had Musk tried to
| make a disaster that affected me into a PR spectacle.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44779998
|
| [2] https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/10C6A/pro
| duction...
| xedeon wrote:
| > Considering that this is exactly what Musk did, I find
| it pretty ironic that his fans have no problem projecting
| that upon people that Musk smears.
|
| A bit ad hominem isn't it? How do you know I am a fan?
| Everything I said are facts from court documents.
| Unsworth was even hostile to actual rescuers/divers...
| Are they fans of Musk too?
|
| How do you address this statement by Unsworth: "I will
| make the divers sugger [sic] for leaving us out of the
| loop"
|
| I think it speaks volumes about what kind of person he is
| and his moral values. Trying to capitalize on a "high
| stakes situation" per your own words. He is not exactly
| the saint/hero you're claiming. Based on court documents.
| Not my own opinion.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Care to address any of my post? Because I don't intend to
| participate in furthering Musk's infantile smear campaign
| even if you want to.
|
| _edit:_ It would be nice if you indicated that you
| edited your above post after I had replied to it. Thanks.
|
| _edit: edit:_ Given that you edited your post, I will
| have to reply via edit.
|
| > _A bit ad hominem isn 't it? How do you know I am a
| fan_
|
| You're aware that HN posts aren't deleted, right? I know
| because of your own posts[1]. Of 338 total comments, 140
| of them are defending Tesla, which is what 41.42% of your
| total posts are about.
|
| For someone who claims they aren't a fan, you sure have a
| strange fixation with defending the company, even making
| it a significant chunk of your HN career.
|
| I implore anyone who thinks that's an "ad hominem" to
| point this out to click on this link[1].
|
| [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=xedeon%20tesla&dateRang
| e=all&p...
| xedeon wrote:
| > For someone who claims they aren't a fan, you sure have
| a strange fixation with defending the company, even
| making it a significant chunk of your HN career.
|
| I love how you keep steering the conversation away from
| facts and directing it towards me. How exactly are you
| providing value on this discussion? Also, hang on...
| There are people who actually consider HN as a "career"?
| How do I get compensated?
|
| I don't matter. Facts do. If you can correct me where I
| said something that is not factual on this thread. Please
| feel free to do so.
|
| > You're aware that HN posts aren't deleted, right?
|
| Of course! This is the internet after all. You're digging
| through my profile to make a point? Now that's what you
| call infantile. Why don't you address what I wrote with
| your counterarguments? You yourself seem to be on an
| emotional Tesla tirade [1]. Don't act all holier than
| thou.
|
| [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=f
| alse&qu...
|
| > I implore anyone who thinks that's an "ad hominem" to
| point this out to click on this link[1].
|
| You just proved my point! What your doing is a sad
| attempt to rally the mob towards me. If people disagree,
| they can just downvote my comments. But I do try to be
| factual as best that I can.
| xedeon wrote:
| I provided you with a collection of facts from the court
| case and ruling. Make of it what you will. But painting
| Unsworth as a saint that did nothing wrong and calling it
| a smear campaign is baseless.
|
| You are essentially discounting the judge/jury decision
| on this matter. If the facts were on Unsworth side. It
| would have been an ironclad case. I am operating from a
| factual standpoint. You seem to be on the emotional side
| because you keep going on this tirade.
| worik wrote:
| "mix of envy and a hatred of success"
|
| No. It is distrust of such a erratic self loving obsessive
| fool.
|
| Yes he is very smart, and is capable of assembling teams of
| fantastic engineers. But he cannot shut up. If it is tweeting
| jokes about taking Tesla private, slandering peopel who are
| doing the dangerous work and do not want his foolish
| interference (pedo guy), advocating (Dog help us!) Bitcoin.
| The lawsuits against whistle blowers. And here: his tolerance
| of fatal failures in his technology in favour of marketing
| and cash flow.
|
| "aggressive disregard for the norms of society": If it were
| thought through and considered it would not be such a
| problem. If he were less intelligent, less driven, it would
| be less of a problem.
|
| He is a fool. But a fool with a big stick. And that is a very
| dangerous thing
| throwawaysea wrote:
| You're exaggerating the impact or importance of a few minor
| negative incidents against world changing achievements.
| He's far from a fool and saying these incidents make him a
| "very dangerous thing" just seems silly.
| kergonath wrote:
| Because he's a twat. Unrepentantly and quite ostensibly so.
| There you go, nothing mysterious about it.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Everyone has some character flaws, some gaffes, some
| negative anecdotes. Focusing on those and calling him a
| "twat" is just a ridiculous characterization when you
| consider what's he's achieved and how positive those
| achievements are for the world. So yes it remains
| mysterious why there are so many people ready to show their
| hate for him. And the only feasible explanations are envy
| or political/ideological motivation.
| sect2k wrote:
| Which positive achievements are we talking about exactly?
| xedeon wrote:
| Just to name a few:
|
| Zip2 Corporation
|
| SpaceX
|
| Tesla Motors
|
| SolarCity
|
| The Boring Company
|
| Hyperloop
|
| Open AI
|
| Neuralink
| sect2k wrote:
| I didn't ask which companies he has/had a stake in, I'm
| asking what the supposed positive achievements for
| humanity are? Don't bother, there really aren't any.
|
| Musk is not your real-life Tony Stark, he's a real life
| Hugo Drax.
| xedeon wrote:
| > I'm asking what the supposed positive achievements for
| humanity are? Don't bother, there really aren't any.
|
| Why such contempt? To infer that Starlink, Tesla and
| SpaceX are not positive achievements for humanity is a
| bit cretinous.
|
| More importantly. What positive achievements have you
| done? The likely answer is that Musk or any founder which
| company is publicly traded (not including social media
| ones for obv reasons) are a net positive for the world
| compared to you.
|
| I find it fascinating how people watching from the
| sidelines love to dunk on entrepreneurs. They also seem
| to be always angry at the world.
|
| The quote "Comparison is the thief of joy" by FDR has
| never ringed more true.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What exactly has Hyperloop "achieved"? It offers the same
| benefit as Maglev with massively inflated costs and far
| less comfortable passenger experience.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Everyone has character flaws. Not everyone has musk level
| character flaws. People who think he's a dick (people
| like me) are louder about it that about other things in
| reaction to people who want to overlook those flaws and
| worship the guy as Mars Jesus.
|
| If you think the only motivations are
| envy/political/ideological, you are just underestimating
| the number of people who don't think like you.
| kergonath wrote:
| His companies do not change his character, though. For
| example, one can acknowledge the usefulness of Amazon and
| still think Bezos is a creep. Musk is a born-rich
| libertarian with an insecure, massive ego and too clever
| for his own good. His stupid behaviour on Twitter and in
| person is well documented. The fact that he established a
| cult of personality does not change this, either.
| new_realist wrote:
| You can have self-driving progress without lax safety practices;
| look at Waymo, which is way ahead of Tesla. Tesla chooses not to
| behave ethically for marketing and cash flow reasons.
| H8crilA wrote:
| You mean ego reasons.
|
| On some earnings call some analyst asked Elon if he would add
| LIDAR to the cars even if it costed literally nothing. "Nah,
| hmm, no. We would not.".
| throwawaysea wrote:
| This feels like the same flawed catastrophizing logic I see with
| anti-car movements like Vision Zero or discussions about
| coronavirus lockdowns - emphasis on negative outcomes and fear
| mongering without consideration of the positives or benefits that
| we are trading off against. Driving is a great convenience that
| saves us time by getting us directly from point A to point B
| quickly. It has a low rate of serious injuries and fatalities.
| The unregulated driver assistance tech from Tesla may have flaws
| and drawbacks that result in some rate of injuries and
| fatalities, but overall it reduces the rate of negative outcomes
| tremendously. Isn't that proof enough that it's a net positive?
| Why is regulation here a good thing when it may increase costs
| and inhibit the fast path to innovation we get otherwise?
|
| To me this sounds like an unproven and spurious claim that
| regulation will offer more benefit relative to letting a company
| like Tesla innovate freely. I don't buy it, and it feels like
| they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| "but overall it reduces the rate of negative outcomes
| tremendously"
|
| Do you have a citation for that?
| bhupy wrote:
| I'm not the GP, but I think they're referring to:
| https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/01/tesla-autopilot-
| acciden...
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| Thank you, that's very informative!
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| That's a comparison that would get any data scientist fired
| (or a marketer promoted). It's not remotely apples to
| apples.
| jquery wrote:
| This is precisely why I bought a Mercedes instead of a Tesla a
| couple years ago. I don't trust Tesla with my life and limb, yet.
| xedeon wrote:
| Interesting take. I'm coming from driving MB.
|
| Their driver assist and safety systems have rarely worked and
| will always trigger false alerts.
|
| Tesla on the other hand have actually saved me from a few
| potential frontal, rear and side swipe accidents. Before I even
| realized what was happening.
| jquery wrote:
| I didn't get MB for self driving capability. I got Mercedes
| because when there's a serious accident, I have a very low
| risk of death. With Tesla it may be low, but at the time
| there wasn't enough data to be sure. Tesla could have been
| the safest or the car version of the 737 Max. For the sake of
| my family's safety I made the conservative choice.
| xedeon wrote:
| > I didn't get MB for self driving capability.
|
| I wasn't referring to "self driving" capabilities. I was
| mainly referencing DISTRONIC PLUS(r), Lane keeping
| assist(LKAS), Automatic emergency braking (AEB) and
| collision avoidance.
|
| We owned 2 MB sedans and an SUV and all had the same
| issues.
|
| > I got Mercedes because when there's a serious accident, I
| have a very low risk of death
|
| I definitely get where you're coming from. There just isn't
| enough data available for Tesla yet from the IIHS. At least
| from their latest report dated May 28, 2020. I hope it
| comes out soon.
|
| What I do know is that the Tesla Model 3 scored high (if
| not the highest) marks as tested by multiple orgs such as
| NHTSA [1], Euro NCAP [2,3], IIHS [4].
|
| [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2020/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/
| 4%252...
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/z3cqj5AAP5I?t=27
|
| [3] https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/press-
| releases/euro-...
|
| [4]
| https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-
| se...
|
| The Tesla Model X was also "The First SUV To Receive A
| Perfect Crash Test Rating"
|
| https://mashable.com/2017/06/13/tesla-model-x-safety-
| rating/
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hnctrWc_g4
| Karunamon wrote:
| Even if you completely write off the FSD, Tesla's safety scores
| are _really good_. The model 3 got 5 stars in every NHTSA
| category, and the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle
| they ever tested.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-3-lowest-probability-injury...
| (first party, but sourced with links)
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I've wondered if that is part of their autonomous strategy.
| Autopilot makes things less safe but other aspects make it
| more safe, so it becomes harder to point the finger at
| autopilot.
| nickik wrote:
| Or you know, they just want to make safe cars. If you go
| back you will see that Musk talks about safety as a core
| feature in every car long before they even had their own
| Self-driving team.
| xedeon wrote:
| > Autopilot makes things less safe
|
| Having owned 3 different models now, I would disagree.
|
| Regardless, even without autopilot. The Automatic emergency
| braking, Collision Avoidance, and Obstacle Aware
| Acceleration saved me countless times. Those are also all
| features that come standard with every car.
|
| Meanwhile, other manufacturers will charge money for
| advanced safety features. Even basic autopilot made my
| drive along windy Oregon roads with dense fog much safer.
|
| Autopilot also pretty much eliminates driver fatigue on
| long road trips.
| jquery wrote:
| A Tesla will probably be my next car. I just wanted more road
| data.
| jsight wrote:
| I think it is great that they are starting to think about this,
| but I find the approach profoundly disappointing. While it is a
| bit silly in form at the moment, this test is starting in a much
| more useful direction, IMO:
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39688/drivers-new-to-automated...
|
| We all know that there are car accidents every year, and it is no
| secret that driver inattention is the root cause for a very large
| percentage of them.
|
| But what can be done about them? The NTSB is focusing almost
| exclusively on driver monitoring while the driver assistance is
| turned on.
|
| But what about when its turned off? And more generally, how do
| these systems compare against driving without such systems at
| all? Its clear that the current state is far from perfect, but an
| overly heavy focus only on failure cases will lead to misleading
| conclusions.
| [deleted]
| Guthur wrote:
| When a driver fails they are culpable, when an auto pilot fails
| who is culpable, who loses a license and potentially faces
| criminal charges?
|
| Auto pilot vs human drivers is not apples to apples because of
| the culpability question imo.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| This is easily solvable. Manufacturers will take out umbrella
| liability policies to immunize them from lawsuits relating to
| self-driving failures. In order to price these policies,
| insurers will perform their own due diligence of the self-
| driving packages. The armies of lawyers employed by the auto
| makers will develop a boilerplate legal defense that will
| make massive lawsuits impractical, and most victims will
| settle out of court.
|
| Alternately, your own auto liability insurance will include
| coverage for your car's automaton, and again it will be
| priced based on risk. For most people, the premium will be
| lower than if they drive themselves, as the risk will be
| lower.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Won't work most places except for the US. Contracts are
| almost always different for the EEA since you can't legally
| sign away your rights here.
|
| Want to start a class action lawsuit? Go for it. The
| company might say you've waived that right, but any such
| clause is null and void.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Nowhere do I mention anyone signing away their liability.
| This doesn't require any kind of click-through license or
| arbitration clause. The manufacturers will be fully open
| to being sued, they'll just have an insurance policy that
| pays out if they lose.
|
| If autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers, then
| ultimately they are going to be safer to ensure.
| melomal wrote:
| VW is setup to do just that with their goliath bank:
| https://www.vwfs.pl/ - I would imagine this is where the
| larger brands may come into their own with larger
| legislation and legality issues. VW provides a whole range
| of financial offerings.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Their comment was specifically about when the autopilot is
| off, so it is apples to apples because bot situation can be
| treated equally - a person driving a car fully manually.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| In a plane when an auto pilot fails the pilot is still
| culpable.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| That's not generally true. It would generally be the
| manufacturer if the autopilot failed (as opposed to
| disengaging).
| Jasper_ wrote:
| The last time a plane's flight system screwed up big time,
| the manufacturer was found to be at fault, all models of
| that plane were grounded, and it was a massive public
| scandal.
| jiofih wrote:
| That's mechanical / system failure, like Toyota's "sudden
| acceleration" problem years ago. The question is about
| _wrong decisions_ made by self driving, where there is no
| clear failure mode.
| foepys wrote:
| Stop the comparison to planes just because it's named
| autopilot in both cases.
|
| There are always 2 highly trained professionals in a
| cockpit and both are familiar with emergency situations
| because they regularly train for it. They are in constant
| contact with ATC that keeps other planes far away from
| them. In case of a crash or even a deviation there are
| entire agencies all over it with sometimes international
| investigators present. All communication is recorded.
|
| A driver is not only alone, they can have very poor skills
| in general which were last tested 40 years ago. They are on
| the road with dozens of vehicles around them, tightly
| packed and often separated by less than a vehicle width
| between them. If a crash occured there may be a few police
| officers present that pick up the pieces and fill out forms
| to satisfy the insurance.
| perilunar wrote:
| > There are always 2 highly trained professionals in a
| cockpit...
|
| Nup. Sometimes it's just one barely trained amateur.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| That's silly. There's a huge difference between the
| 'barely trained amateur' and the average person in coach.
| Who drives a car.
| usrusr wrote:
| And those are still far more regulated than drivers, and
| they would be regulated even stricter would they
| routinely kill others without being harmed themselves.
| Meanwhile, cars are _advertised_ by how well they protect
| the driver in events that likely involve killing others.
| manquer wrote:
| Commerical flying should not be equated to amateur
| driving. Amatuer flying does not require a second person
| or many other safety requirements. Commerical driving
| does have higher standards on number of hours ,
| certifications etc
|
| Lack of adequate recurring certifications or poor
| standards does not absolve the driver of his responsibily
| towards himself and more importantly to others on and
| near the road, same as the pilot , inadequate oversight
| is not an excuse.
|
| driving a 2+ton vehicle that at the typical speeds can be
| fatal or cause major injury _you are responsible_ period.
| Same for any other equipment or a pet
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Once you get to L3 self-driving, you delegate full
| responsibility to the car, even if only under limited
| circumstances. Many L4 cars will not even have steering
| wheels or pedals, and won't have a pilot's seat. A lot of
| prototypes turn the front seats around to face the back
| row.
|
| Do you still believe that the driver is responsible under
| those circumstances?
|
| Anything L2 or under is a "driver assistance system", and
| the driver maintains control and responsibility at all
| times. All of the systems in recreational or commercial
| aircraft today (autopilot, auto-land) are L2 or less.
|
| This is why it's very critical that automakers not blur
| the lines to drivers. We are approaching an inflection
| point as to who is responsible behind the wheel, the car
| or the AI.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| The day is rapidly approaching where we'll have to choose
| between the desire to blame and the desire to save lives.
|
| Fairly soon autopilot will be safer than new drivers and the
| elderly who are aging out of the ability to drive safely. I
| hope we have the political will to potentially save my
| parents' and child's life by allowing them to have an AI
| driver even if it's not 100% safe.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'm glad you have a magical belief without meaningful facts
| produced with meaningful oversight. Tesla's representations
| are essentially "hold my beer while we provide not full
| self driving".
| craftinator wrote:
| > Fairly soon autopilot will be safer than new drivers and
| the elderly
|
| This assumes that our hill climbing hasn't hit the top of
| the hill in this area. I submit that there's almost no
| evidence of recent continuous growth in this technology.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I've been reading "fairly soon" for so many years now.
| People laughed on HN when you said we wouldn't have it by
| 2020. I hope technologists are willing to do the hard work
| to make sure it actually is safer before making assertions
| that it is based on shoddy as-honest-as-an-advertisement
| statistics.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| My parents will be alive for probably another 20 years.
| That's the kind of time horizons I'm looking at things,
| not the current marketing speak. If we get there within a
| decade, that will seem very quick to me and I'll be very
| happy with our progress.
| foepys wrote:
| And I make the prediction that Tesla's "Autopilot" in its
| current form of camera-only navigation will not be able
| to be safer than new drivers and the elderly (below 80)
| within the next 20 years, maybe ever.
|
| To be it must navigate any situation without any driver
| intervention:
|
| - parking in tight spaces
|
| - follow the assigned turn lanes in an intersection
|
| - follow the local laws on turn on red
|
| - navigating streets that are less than a meter wider
| than the vehicle and have vehicles parked alternating
| between right and left but are still both ways (very
| common in Europe)
|
| - nighttime driving in heavier rain
|
| - following diversions that are not published, badly
| signposted, and were set up quickly by the city due to
| sudden a hole or similar in the street
|
| - follow streets without any or even wrong markings on
| them
|
| Most importantly it must not drive people into dividers,
| well-lit emergency equipment, and/or crossing trailers.
|
| The fun thing about this is: we both won't ever be able
| to prove our theories right because neither enough
| elderly nor enough new drivers will own a Tesla with
| "Autopilot". They are just too expensive.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| A decade is a long time, long enough for the entire tech
| stack of every self driving platform to change
| completely.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| I don't see anything in this comment thread that was
| specifically referring to Tesla self driving cars. I
| think the sentiment is for self-driving cars in general,
| achieved however.
| avs733 wrote:
| And this is what killed earlier attempts at self driving
| cars... liability (and merging problems but those were
| fixable)
|
| Granted in the late 90s the self driving technology was
| mostly focused on closed roads and using modified systems (eg
| magnetic pins in the road) to help cars self locate
|
| But it came down to: if there's an accident who's
| responsible? The driver? The car manufacturer? The road
| designer? The road builder? The government?
|
| For this to all work, companies have to take responsibility
| (not legal, but much more ethical than Tesla has shown) for
| their technology and you probably need a government system
| like the vaccine adverse event reporting system with
| associated payouts.
| Corrado wrote:
| I think there is still a question of who's responsible. If
| I have an accident in my non-automated Honda Accord, who's
| responsible? It could be the car manufacturer, if the front
| wheel falls off because of a manufacturing defect. Or it
| could be the government because of unmaintained safety
| features. Does that equation change if the car is "full
| self driving"?
| avs733 wrote:
| I am not a lawyer...
|
| My snarky answer says "who wrote and who is interpreting
| the licensing agreement"
| baybal2 wrote:
| Even back with those self driving buses, things were on the
| side of extreme caution.
|
| I remember the big problem with them were stray soda cans
| triggering stop.
|
| I don't see how current technological advances can any
| improve the local environment awareness of the car until
| the actual _cognition_ element is there.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Tesla usually goes for most technically advanced solution.
|
| But when it comes to driver alertness monitoring they pick the
| easiest to fool solution. I suspect it's intentional. Eye
| tracking would prevent their users from misusing autopilot. It
| would kill the hype.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| The latest FSD Beta monitors driver alertness with cabin
| camera. Tesla has rejected beta testers who did not pay enough
| attention:
|
| https://twitter.com/TSLAgang/status/1370524705950724097
| mcot2 wrote:
| The latest FSD beta is now confirmed to be using the internal
| camera to monitor for alertness and Elon has just announced via
| twitter that they kicked people out of the Beta for misuse.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| I'm guessing "misuse" means people who posted videos on
| YouTube.
| [deleted]
| threeseed wrote:
| > Tesla usually goes for most technically advanced solution.
|
| They don't have LiDAR. So this statement is clearly false.
| nickik wrote:
| An easy argument can be made that advanced vision system is
| technologically more advanced.
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| I like Tesla, but... good. Having worked in the autonomous
| industry and seeing "how the sausage is really made" is scary as
| fuck.
|
| One thing to keep in mind, is thats its not just the feds, as you
| will notice testing is done in certain states that have less
| regulation (read: governors hands got greased)
|
| Ill leave you with one insight into the sausage factory to
| contemplate. I told a c-level we needed a code review, and he
| balked, saying something to the effect of "Do you know how much
| that costs, how long it takes, and how hard it is?! No" This
| company has vehicles on public roads already!...
| andrekandre wrote:
| "Do you know how much that costs, how long it takes, and how
| hard it is?! No" This company has vehicles on public roads
| already!...
|
| this is why imo "just let the market figure it out" is not
| always the answer to every problem...
| WalterBright wrote:
| NASA has crashes, too.
| dathos wrote:
| Boeing does as well, and is that not partially to blame to
| weak regulations? (or regulators not doing their job)
| WalterBright wrote:
| Implicit from blaming the market is the presumption that
| socialism does better.
| nyx_ wrote:
| You statists are so silly. Obviously, we simply need to wait
| until the vehicles have killed several thousand people.
| Demand will decrease until it's no longer profitable for the
| manufacturer to operate. Another public health crisis solved
| by the invisible hand.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Sounds more like Adam Smith's invisible finger
| baybal2 wrote:
| You don't need to know the how sausages are made to know that
| double digit of "AI industry" is complete fraud.
|
| Safe "AI" driving is in principle unsolvable.
|
| Blow the whistle.
| xnx wrote:
| From what I've read there's Waymo and then there's everybody
| else.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Well as an owner (model 3) the general understanding is that
| you watch over the car when it is driving. Basically you back
| seat driver your high school kid.
|
| The car is decidedly paranoid when on full autopilot to the
| point of overly cautious at times. It certainly won't let you
| have your hands off the wheel nor with a light touch suffice. I
| tried timing the systems "apply light pressure" warnings
| interval but its very random and definitely more aggressive
| when on a curve as its very easy then for it to recognize you
| aren't holding the wheel.
|
| There are warnings when you use autopilot that flat out say you
| have to pay attention and demands are constant that you show
| you are by causing real resistance on the steering wheel.
|
| On anything but freeways it won't even go over five miles over
| the speed limit. Straight cruise control does not have that
| limit but once AP is engaged you are restricted to +5. It will
| slow down automatically for detected speed limit signs with a
| lower speed but not auto increase for higher limits. It will
| not go through a green light unless car in front does first
| without you indicating its safe.
|
| Now interestingly enough Tesla has kicked people out of beta of
| the newest software for not paying enough attention to the car
| either through use of the inside camera; the beta uses it; and
| steering wheel resistance.
|
| So perhaps if you fail enough maybe the car should say you
| don't pay enough attention to use the feature and must wait 24
| to 48 hours before you try again and then be overly strict on
| driver detection?
|
| It certainly is not perfect, current general availability
| version, but it is amazing for what it can do especially at
| night or poor weather.
| jiofih wrote:
| I was under the impression the car already does restrict
| access to AP if you failed to provide input, locking you out
| for 24+ hours.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| It locks you out until you pull over, put the car in park,
| and put it back in gear. So, maybe five minutes if you're
| between exits on the freeway.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| > Under then-President Donald Trump, NHTSA largely let automakers
| do what they liked when it came to advanced driver-assistance
| systems (ADAS) and prototype driverless vehicles.
|
| I have questions. Were the NHTSA's policies regarding ADAS
| different under Obama than Trump? Are they different under Biden
| than Trump? If so, what changed? If not, why mention it?
| prepend wrote:
| > If not, why mention it?
|
| More hate, more clicks. People hate Trump. Therefore editors
| want more clicks.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Not significantly from what I can tell.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Written policies don't change that quickly. Policing, aka the
| execution of those policies, can be swayed by firings,
| appointments, executive order, and political pressure. Trump
| used these avenues more than most.
| mcot2 wrote:
| I don't think the NTSB is properly weighing the safety benefits
| of these systems. They seem to be myopically focused on a few
| crashes/incidents. Cars are not planes. For better or worse we as
| the public have a lot more tolerance for car crashes than plane
| crashes.
|
| I don't think there is enough evidence that the current ADAS
| systems are better or worse than human drivers at this point. I'd
| say the best way to improve the situation is not to have heavy
| handed regulation at this stage and let the technology play out.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yeah, the problem is the "high profile crashes" aspect.
|
| It's not that crashes with only humans behind the wheel are
| uncommon. They're common as dirt! But they're not "high
| profile." So arguably NTSB's perspective (since they only do
| "high profile" crashes) is heavily skewed toward dramatic
| anecdotes compared to NHTSA who have to take into account all
| the crashes, high profile or not.
|
| Data vs anecdote.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The staff of the NTSB is well aware of the broader context of
| automotive safety.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I love some of this. "Elon says that the way NTSB tests is
| biased against Tesla. They must be a failed institution/in
| the pockets of big oil!"
|
| Critical thinking far too often goes out the window.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| I think NTSB is using data in the aggregate. What they seem
| to be focusing on is manufacturers, specifically Tesla,
| broadly allowing use of these systems in circumstances where
| it's possibly dangerous and also allowing advanced features,
| which can be more dangerous, for smaller groups. Their POV is
| that if manufacturers were more restrictive about where the
| comfort features could be used, there would be fewer deaths.
| I've never read about them criticizing the active safety
| components to these systems.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| But here is the thing. If you compare Tesla's with some of the
| other higher end cars, they have a higher mortality.
|
| https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Tesla isn't selling exclusively in the luxury market. If you
| want a high performance or road-trip capable electric car,
| you basically have just one option.
|
| So you should compare against overall cars, not just "high
| end" luxury cars. Being electric has made them more
| expensive, but they're not really true luxury cars for the
| most part and are not driven by the same people or under the
| same conditions or under the same driving style as luxury
| cars.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Tesla's mortality rate (41 deaths per million vehicle
| years) is so much higher than the average luxury car (13
| deaths per million vehicle years) that when comparing the
| two, the difference is hugely statistically significant._ "
|
| From the IIHS:
|
| " _The overall driver death rate for all 2017 and
| equivalent models during 2015-18 was 36 deaths per million
| registered vehicle years._ "
| (https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-
| and-...)
|
| Tesla's rate is the same as a Mazda 6 or Toyota Camry
| hybrid.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > Tesla's mortality rate (41 deaths per million vehicle
| years) is so much higher
|
| 164 deaths, but only 6 on autopilot. While it might be
| safe to make statistical inference with 164 observations,
| no good statistician would make strong claims based on
| just 6. There is no evidence one way or the other for the
| impact of autopilot on fatalities.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 164 deaths, but only 6 on autopilot.
|
| I'm curious to know if "autopilot cut off automatically a
| few seconds before" counts in the first or second
| category.
| fallingknife wrote:
| But the model 3, which is the majority of their sales,
| isn't a luxury car.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| And the Model S is really more like an electric Ford
| Mustang than a Bentley.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _...[Tesla 's] 41 deaths per million vehicle
| years...overall driver death rate for all 2017 and
| equivalent models...36 deaths per million registered
| vehicle years..._"
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Tesla's statistical range still overlaps that 36 figure.
|
| Compare it to a Ford Mustang. I bet you won't. ;)
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _If you want a high performance or road-trip capable
| electric car, you basically have just one option._
|
| Is it the Porsche Taycan? Or the Porsche Taycan Cross
| Turismo? Or do you mean the Audi e-tron GT? Or perhaps the
| Lucid Air? Or maybe the Mercedes EQS?
| jsight wrote:
| To be fair, bringing the Lucid Air into this is like
| bringing the Tesla Roadster or Tri-Motor Cybertruck into
| it. They don't exist yet except as prototypes.
| clouddrover wrote:
| Release candidate stage now:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM6x_jSKixg
| jsight wrote:
| Ha, I actually watched that video earlier today. I'm
| definitely hoping that they get this into full
| production, as it really does look like an exciting
| vehicle.
|
| We had gone a long time without any new successful car
| companies, and now maybe we can have two launched this
| century? Maybe even a few little boutique makers can make
| a go of it too... I really what Aptera is doing right
| now.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I would certainly take a taycan over any tesla, but to be
| fair, the taycan has a significantly worse range. I might
| be wrong now, but tesla was the leader in that category
| last I checked.
| clouddrover wrote:
| Paper miles don't count for much. Real world miles are a
| more useful comparison. The Taycan does poorly in the
| EPA's test but does a lot better on the road:
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-
| tayca...
|
| https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2021-porsche-taycan-
| epa-r...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C_7fBljFzY
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFsjMvCFlig
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| 10k for a fraud is not high end? Where does fraud Karen
| finds shills like you?
| worik wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_current
| l...
|
| Tesla is right up there but there are many snapping at its
| heels, especially from China.
|
| I am hoping my next car will be a Chinese electric sports
| car. But, unlike a Tesla, one I own.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| A self entitled rich man can afford to take chances.
|
| The guy he plows into can't.
|
| Tesla's driving technology seems good enough, so I can picture
| guys whom are tired, or have been drinking, thinking I'll take
| a calculated risk tonight.
|
| Once a week I think about that tech guy whom plowed into a
| bollard on 101, or the guy sleeping coming home from Vegas.
|
| I'm glad the NTSB is being very prudent. This is coming from a
| guy whom hates most laws, and believe society would be better
| off without so many regulations.
| hahahahe wrote:
| That's an interesting take. So you think we shouldn't have
| regulations on this new unproven technology where the
| government poured billions upon billions to help develop. And
| that's fine. Just don't take gov't money then.
| prophesi wrote:
| Not that there shouldn't be any regulations, but that the
| direction regulations are going in are pretty heavy-handed
| when you consider how accepting as a society we are to have
| thousands of car accidents every single day, and thousands of
| car-related deaths every year (in the USA at least). Self-
| driving cars are already much safer than human-driven cars.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| "Self-driving cars are already much safer than human-driven
| cars."
|
| Citation sorely needed. The few self driving cars currently
| on the road either require active human supervision or only
| operate in the absolute best circumstances so can't be
| compared to human drivers who operate in all conditions and
| all types of vehicles.
| hahahahe wrote:
| No they're not safer than human-driven cars. Not enough
| data to claim that. And how can you even collect that data
| when we don't even have fully automated cars in the wild?
| prophesi wrote:
| There's plenty of data on it. Safety is _the_ number one
| thing people are paying attention to in self-driving
| cars.
| kergonath wrote:
| It certainly is the number one fantasy some people have
| about autonomous cars. As the parent said, there is just
| no data to support either position.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| You might not like the data, but it exists. Tesla cars
| are 2x more likely to get into an accident when not in
| Autopilot mode.
|
| Tesla cars in Autopilot mode are roughly 8x less likely
| to get into an accident compared with the average number
| of reported accidents in the US.
|
| Note: There is a bias about when Autopilot is enabled
| (i.e. on highways). There is a bias in the type of person
| that can buy a Tesla car.
|
| That said: Tesla is legally obligated to report all
| Autopilot accidents. Most accidents are not reported,
| only the major accidents are reported. So it's likely
| that Tesla car's accident rate are even better than the
| data suggests.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| kergonath wrote:
| > There is a bias about when Autopilot is enabled (i.e.
| on highways). There is a bias in the type of person that
| can buy a Tesla car.
|
| Yes. This makes any extrapolation to the population as a
| whole impossible without a lot of assumptions. In
| particular, things like this are meaningless because of
| sampling bias:
|
| > Tesla cars in Autopilot mode are roughly 8x less likely
| to get into an accident compared with the average number
| of reported accidents in the US.
| prophesi wrote:
| It's almost as if we need a society that doesn't revolve
| around owning high speed vehicles. But we've missed that
| boat, so automation is our next goal to drastically
| reduce the thousands of yearly deaths.
|
| I don't understand how this is a controversial opinion.
| The moment self-driving cars is mentioned, safety is the
| first thing that comes to mind. As a parent comment
| stated, Tesla is legally obligated to report every
| accident. And if a huge accident occurs, it will be in
| the news. Meanwhile it takes a 100 car pileup for any
| other vehicular accident to make it into a tiny sliver of
| the news cycle.
|
| I don't own a Tesla or any of their stock, but the crux
| of the argument is that companies developing driving
| automation are already heavily regulated and will be put
| to the fire if mishaps do occur. We desperately need this
| automation if we do claim to not accept thousands of
| vehicle-related fatalities per year in our society, since
| better machine vision is always possible while better
| human judgement and reaction times are not.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > Note: There is a bias about when Autopilot is enabled
| (i.e. on highways). There is a bias in the type of person
| that can buy a Tesla car.
|
| This is such an enormous bias, it invalidates the rest of
| the comment.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| There is a massive stats issue in this. It's not that
| there isn't enough data. Is that there isn't the right
| kind of data. Properly controlled apples to apples data
| is what we need, not just a gazillion miles.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Society does not accept any level of car accidents. That's
| why there are safety regulations, that's why there are
| safety investigators, that's why there is a ton of safety-
| related R&D and testing, heck that's why there are
| stoplights and traffic laws and rules about using your
| mobile phone.
|
| Individually, no one ever wants to get into a car accident.
| Collectively, the desired number of accidents each year is
| zero. We're not there yet because it's hard to do, not
| because of acceptance.
|
| So any new mechanism for accidents is going to come in for
| very heavy scrutiny. And by mechanism I don't mean solely
| technology, but also human factors, which are huge issues
| when it comes to the current state of "self driving" cars.
| matz1 wrote:
| Society does accept some level of car accident otherwise
| there would be no car on the road at all.
|
| Safety regulations is good but too much safety regulation
| is bad.
|
| As individual I accept some level risk, I accept that
| there is some level of risk that I will be in accident,
| the trade off of 0 risk are too much.
| Hypocritelefty wrote:
| No point debating anything here as this place is full of
| Tesla shills
| Isinlor wrote:
| Companies should be required to monitor distances driven and
| report crashes when L2+ systems are active.
|
| If it's proven that a system performs significantly worse
| than a human then regulate it further.
| nojito wrote:
| There isn't even evidence that backup cameras reduce accidents.
| maxerickson wrote:
| If the system requires driver attention for the best safety
| outcomes, it seems a bit over the top to describe regulation
| requiring functional driver attention monitoring 'heavy
| handed'.
|
| Putting it another way, is there evidence that some ADAS are
| better than others? Because that's another way to choose
| regulations.
| ehvatum wrote:
| Driving with autopilot off certainly requires driver
| attention.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Saying any brand is safer than human driving is a huge lie. If we
| exclude DUI and tired drivers but include difficult terrain(not
| well marked, heavy rain, covered in snow) or streets like in
| India or Egypt with very few traffic lights at junctions, then
| the self driving cars will need permanent human intervention or
| to be stopped period. Under these circumstances, the human driver
| will be much less dangerous.
|
| I will be less sceptical about fsd when I see elon musk taking a
| blind fold amd his kids on the rear seats of a fsd Tesla in snow
| covered new york heavy duty traffic or an unmarked, slippery and
| snow covered road in a storm with 20feet visibility taking a 5 hr
| ride. Should not be a big deal for someone who announced a coast
| to coast trip without intervention. What happened to that
| anyway..?
| Retric wrote:
| Except humans do drink and drive. If everyone drove like school
| buss drivers then US would have 1/10th it's current mother
| vehicle fatality rate. But, we don't so if you're talking about
| human drivers you need to look at everything people behind the
| wheel do from highly defensive driving to getting a BJ while
| doing 140mph at 2AM.
|
| As someone not in a Tesla that's what's important to me.
| bagels wrote:
| Maybe the question is who it's safer for?
| Retric wrote:
| I am _not_ buying their self driving package so as a
| bystander in the other car it's statistically safer for me.
|
| As to the actual drivers/passengers that's a more complex
| question. It's likely going to continue killing some people
| who would otherwise survive, but nobody is forcing them to
| use the system while otherwise safe to drive. On the other
| hand others will only turn it on when tired etc which is
| likely where the net benefit comes from.
| xedeon wrote:
| > Saying any brand is safer than human driving is a huge lie.
|
| Can you substantiate this statement with discernible data? We
| recently did a road trip in Oregon. Even with an older version
| of autopilot (AP1) on our Model X which only has one front
| facing camera. The drive with having it engaged while closely
| supervising was safer.
|
| There was really dense fog with long stretches of windy roads.
| I was having such a hard time that I had to slow down
| considerably. I was probably were pissing off local drivers
| behind me.
|
| Meanwhile autopilot made quick work of the task without any
| disengagements. The latest version (AP3) is already
| considerably better and actually provides practical value.
| elzbardico wrote:
| This is obviously political. Elon has been too much vocal in the
| last year. This is not good for business
| mhb wrote:
| As usual, and as exemplified by virtually every decision in the
| Covid handling debacle, no mention of cost/benefit tradeoffs.
|
| What number of deaths will be due to slower progress due to
| needing to comply with whatever the NTSB believes will save
| lives?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Why is tesla the only company that has to exhibit this behavior
| to progress? GM for instance has two different programs for
| "self driving", their supercruise ADAS and cruise, the Waymo
| competitor. Are they farther away from superhuman self driving
| because they've never promised "FSD" in their ADAS?
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Because they don't need to justify their insane stock price
| valuation by becoming a software platform, Tesla does or the
| stock crashes.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I have some snake oil to sell you. I promise it'll save lives
| and if it doesn't, then it'll at least enable me learn to make
| better snake oil, saving lives in the long run. I promise.
| It'll also help me built faster-than-light travel, because I'm
| certain I'm in the right track for that, I just need to go
| faster with less red tape.
|
| As if there's a simple "spend lives now to save more lives
| later" knob.
| epistasis wrote:
| Is there evidence that we can expect a benefit? Could we put a
| probability distribution over that?
|
| In other life and death fields, like medicine, the promise of
| saving lives is made all the time, but even for great benefit
| we do not cut corners to prove benefit more quickly.
|
| Given the way that automobiles have little regard for life, I
| would rather that we take our queue from fields like medicine
| that have bothered to deal with the ethics and the cost benefit
| analysis.
|
| Similarly, your claims about COVID reactions not weighing the
| cost benefit analysis are unfounded, at least that I have seen.
| I have seen many self-motivated parties making ridiculous,
| absurd, and harmful suggestions, but nothing that could be
| taken intellectually seriously. It's just people scamming for
| their own personal gain at the expense of others' lives.
| matz1 wrote:
| Many government all of the word chose lockdown, thats prime
| example of not weighing cost benefit analysis.
| mhb wrote:
| _your claims about COVID reactions not weighing the cost
| benefit analysis are unfounded_
|
| Can you give one example of a government or government agency
| that has justified whether to shut down based on expected
| value of quality adjusted life years?
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| It's a theme I notice across society. We no longer are
| consequentialists. We value the means over then ends. I believe
| this switch in ethics will hurt our society in the long run.
| Guzba wrote:
| Isn't 'The ends justify the means' the argument of every
| villain ever? Unrelated to this Tesla stuff, it seems
| reasonable to observe that the means do actually matter.
| rhino369 wrote:
| But it shouldn't be just a villain argument. Sometimes the
| ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. Depends--
| entirety--on what the ends and the means are and the
| relationship between the two.
|
| But the end to Telsa throwing out unreliable Not-Even-
| Close-to-FULL-SELF-DRIVING is to sell cars--not to usher in
| a glorious era without traffic collisions.
| hoseja wrote:
| Villains are those the media makers want you to dislike.
| Try sometimes noticing how many "villains" only want to
| disrupt the status quo, with some murder superficially
| tacked on for easy moral superiority.
| donovanian wrote:
| > We value the means over then ends.
|
| I find this hard to square with a large segment of society
| just matter-of-factly espousing "equity", which is a less
| obvious way of saying what was expressed in the past as
| "equality of outcome".
|
| Of course, through societies of the past experimenting, it
| was largely recognized as only possible through systems that
| end up being miserable and authoritarian.
|
| So it's easier to push it again to a new generation under a
| vague, benign-sounding new term.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Equity does not mean "equality of outcome," it means that
| unequal outcomes are proportional to relevant factors only.
|
| For example an equitable approach to criminal prosecution
| is that people are exonerated or convicted based on the
| best available evidence, with no variance attributable to
| their ability to afford a lawyer (an equitable approach
| enshrined in our Constitution but still a challenge for
| society).
|
| And an equitable approach of salary is that people are paid
| in proportion to their contributions to the business, with
| no variance attributable to the color of their skin (for
| example).
|
| We have to measure inputs and outcomes to infer the state
| of equity because we don't have a reliable deterministic
| model of society.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| You're describing equality not equity, in my opinion.
| Everyone being recognized for their proportional
| contributions to the business is equality.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Equality means things are measurably the same.
|
| 4 = 4
|
| If one team wins the Super Bowl, and one team loses the
| Super Bowl, then those teams are not equal; that is not
| equality. But if the game was contested fairly, with no
| cheating or corruption, then the outcome is equitable,
| even though it's not equal.
|
| In the U.S. what we generally strive for is equality as
| an input and equity as an output. If you hire two people,
| each should have an equal chance of contributing to the
| business, i.e. neither should be inhibited by irrelevant
| factors. But it's expected and ok if one contributes more
| and advances farther. If it's based on a fair measurement
| of their performance, that unequal outcome will still be
| equitable.
|
| That's why you'll often see folks talk about "equality of
| opportunity." Not equality in general; equality as an
| input.
| donovanian wrote:
| > Equality means things are measurably the same.
|
| No I think you're loading the meaning of equal. No one
| would say "you and I are equal" and expect that we're
| clones.
|
| > That's why you'll often see folks talk about "equality
| of opportunity." Not equality in general; equality as an
| input.
|
| People talk about equality of opportunity because that's
| the circumstances that people concluded recognize human
| dignity and autonomy.
|
| As soon as you begin the path of equal outcomes, you're
| talking an expansive micro-managing state optimizing for
| variables they scarcely understand.
|
| And fundamentally there's a lack of faith in people as
| capable human beings that can manage the affairs of their
| own life and work to lead the life they want by their own
| endeavor. It's paternalism.
| perardi wrote:
| On the one hand: _caveat emptor_ , you should study the manual
| and docs before you engage the limited automatic driving system
| on your car.
|
| On the other hand: calling something "Full Self-Driving", when it
| is in fact definitely not fully self-driving, kind of flies in
| the face of the obvious plain text reading of the phrase "Full
| Self-Driving".
| airhead969 wrote:
| _What is really important in the world of doublespeak [that is,
| marketing] is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or
| unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use
| lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those
| that don't fit an agenda or program._
|
| - Edward S. Herman
| gifnamething wrote:
| Caveat omnis. Failing to read the manual is a danger to
| everyone around you.
| IshKebab wrote:
| "You should study the manual before you use this potentially
| deadly system" is about the dumbest way to design a potentially
| deadly system ever.
|
| Decades of experience has repeatedly taught that people are not
| perfect robots that always read manuals, and if you design your
| system under the assumption that they are then it is you that
| is at fault, not them.
|
| There's a reason we have safety interlocks and dead man
| switches and seat belts and helmets and ... It's no use having
| a manual that says "do not open the microwave door while it is
| running".
| hanniabu wrote:
| I mean, that's like saying if you design a plane under the
| assumption that the pilot will be trained then the plane
| manufacturer is at fault. There's definitely a level of
| expected responsibility on the user. If somebody starts a
| chainsaw grabbing the blade instead of the handle does that
| mean the chainsaw manufacturer should be at fault?
| Qwertious wrote:
| I'm pretty sure safety has a list of how to deal with
| safety based on practicality - the top of the list is to
| design the equipment so the safety risk isn't possible in
| the first place (e.g. design the device so touching it
| doesn't electrocute you), then various levels of mitigation
| (put a barrier around it, put clearly marked concrete and
| physical distance around it), then only if all that is
| horribly impractical comes the "solution" of training the
| user not to do the dangerous thing.
|
| Also, aren't chainsaws nowadays designed so that if the
| user doesn't have two hands on the chainsaw grabbing the
| triggers, the chainsaw automatically cuts off? IIRC that's
| a thing.
|
| Edit:there's the grip-safety ("safety throttle") for the
| trigger finger and there's the chain break for the forward
| hand, which will push forward and activate the brakes if
| the hand let's go or if recoil pulls the hand forward.
|
| The user also needs training as there's still no way to
| guard the exposed blade when in use nor to keep it out of
| proximity of humans.
| bekindandopen wrote:
| You might be surprised at how many machines work that way,
| though.
|
| There's the classic aphorism about tools like lathes: "This
| machine has no brain, please use your own." But that's
| usually in an industrial setting with OSHA, mandated safety
| trainings, inspections, a culture of reporting unsafe
| practices without judgement, etc.
|
| As CNC machines get cheaper and smaller, we are starting to
| see things like laser cutters sold to consumers with a pair
| of glasses and a manual rather than an enclosure. Hope you
| remember to lock the door if you have kids or pets...
|
| It is a worrying trend which seems to be accelerating in the
| US due to crumbling and senescent regulatory institutions.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Lathes are a good example of exactly what I'm talking
| about! The manual might say "don't start the lathe with the
| chuck key still in place" but that doesn't stop people from
| doing it.
|
| A much better solution is to add a physical safety
| interlock which prevents you from starting the lathe
| without removing the chuck key, which is exactly what some
| lathes do!
|
| I agree the safety level of a lot of Chinese machines is
| very poor.
| darkerside wrote:
| Those new consumer goods are a lawsuit away from fixing
| whatever dangerous characteristics they are shipping with
| today.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| No, they are a mandatory binding arbitration away from
| keeping accountability at bay, with an NDA.
| ryandrake wrote:
| More like they are a lawsuit away from shutting down.
| It's far easier to kill the product and then cry about
| how unfair lawsuits add no regulation are than to just
| fix the problems.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > You should study the manual before you use this potentially
| deadly system is about the dumbest way to design a
| potentially deadly system ever.
|
| That's exactly how the manual/pilot operating handbook and
| supplements for most airplane autopilots (and airplanes)
| read.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| So should we start having drivers license requirements as
| hard as pilot license requirements? If not, then their
| manuals aren't so comparable.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Maybe I wasn't clear - obviously sometimes you need to
| resort to training. But "they should have read the
| manual" doesn't excuse you from any attempt to make
| something safe and easy to use _without_ reading the
| manual. That should always be done if possible.
| impostervt wrote:
| I just test drove a model 3 today. Fun car! I ended up ordering
| one.
|
| But as a software developer myself..there is no WAY I'd let the
| car drive itself. I'm a pretty decent developer, and maybe
| Tesla's developers are better, but knowing how many mistakes I
| make in code...just hell no.
| kergonath wrote:
| This. Friends sometimes don't understand how one can be a nerd
| and still not want to AI all the things (or electronic voting,
| for that matter). We know how the sausage is made, and there's
| no way I'm trusting developers at a car manufacturer to do
| things properly. Even in cases where there is a reasonable
| definition for "properly".
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| The fact that they're talking about finishing QA weeks before
| releasing beta FSD software tells me everything I need to know.
| Watching any random YouTube video of the functionality fills in
| the gaps.
| alexashka wrote:
| Wait until you find out how much of society already runs based
| on code someone wrote.
|
| Just don't be one of the free beta testers :) When a new
| version of anything gets released, I give it a year or two. By
| that time, stackoverflow answers get magically generated, bugs
| fixed, articles written and trade-offs articulated.
| ericd wrote:
| This seems like a pretty key piece:
|
| _This separation of responsibilities has contributed to a
| culture gap between the agencies. As the agency responsible for
| writing regulations, NHTSA has to trade safety off against other
| considerations like economic costs, the lobbying clout of
| automakers, and the risk of consumer backlash. In contrast, NTSB
| 's rulings are purely advisory, which frees the agency to
| doggedly advocate strong safety measures._
|
| (NTSB is the one "blasting" Tesla). It's hard to be completely
| sympathetic to a system-safety-at-all-costs viewpoint, in that
| slowing down the development of actual full self driving with
| superhuman performance by even a year due to increased friction
| on making changes has severe hidden costs - 38,000 are killed
| every year in the US alone in car-related incidents, and many
| more are severely injured with long lasting repercussions. And
| many of those are in the prime of their lives, so it's worse than
| an apples to apples comparison with death counts from many
| ailments would suggest.
|
| I think the NHTSA letting things develop on their own for a bit
| is actually the smart move here, all things considered.
|
| That said, Tesla's marketing strategy is pretty borderline.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| We need an infrastructure architect here in the us. The bus I
| commute on went under, and I can't be trusted to drive 120 miles
| a day and keep my speed in check. I started looking at the most
| automated rides I could find (Tesla is leagues ahead if I'm not
| mistaken), and I'm still... driving.
|
| I for one, would be more than happy to prolong my commute, on a
| dedicated, reduced speed lane, if it meant I could sit in the
| back seat and work. The belief that we'll incrementally get to
| level 5 besides human drivers on the extant infrastructure
| (lanes) is very misplaced.
|
| Fingers crossed that the feds can develop a roadmap (sorry!) to
| support the transition from level 2 to level 5. It will not
| happen on open roadways--lidar or not!
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Trains solved this ages ago. More US cities should be investing
| in mass transit. Self-driving is a long tail problem because
| the number of things that can go wrong is infinite. Keeping the
| cars on tracks reduces the complexity substantially.
| kortilla wrote:
| Trains didn't solve this, they just made different problems.
| With trains you're beholden to the schedules and the routes.
| They require dense living and comfort being packed in train
| cars with strangers.
| burlesona wrote:
| FWIW, while this is a representative description of trains
| in the US, it's now how they work everywhere. When I lived
| in Italy there was very regular service from my little town
| to the nearby major cities, and while the trains were well-
| used they weren't ever "packed."
|
| We could have a similar train network if we wanted one, we
| just don't want one enough to pay for it.
| Fricken wrote:
| Those aren't problems, they're solutions. The problem is in
| your head.
| kortilla wrote:
| No, schedules are absolutely a limitation
| leetcrew wrote:
| trains are a great solution for point-to-point links between
| two dense areas (eg, city center to city center or intra-city
| transit). given that GP has a 120 mi commute, it's a fairly
| safe bet that they either live or work in a sparse area that
| would not be well served by a train. the appeal of a train
| drops off pretty fast if you have to drive to the station.
| [deleted]
| ph2082 wrote:
| Whoever come up with a this levels in autonomous driving
| (L1-L5) must be marketing genius. Ideally it should have been
| Yes or No answer to "does your car support autonomous driving
| ?", just like alive or dead. Right now, it is just another
| reason in list of Road accident deaths, till it perfected.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Quite the opposite. It was defined by engineers, not
| marketing people, and it's based on clear descriptions of the
| capabilities of the system, as well as who is in control.
|
| The binary statement youre looking for comes between L2 and
| L3. A L2 system is a driver assist system, the driver is in
| command at all times. An L3 system can drive itself (driver
| napping or otherwise occupied) under specific well-defined
| conditions.
| Karunamon wrote:
| This is law, so now you have to define "autonomous driving"
| in an unambiguous way.
|
| Hence, levels. Besides, we're in a transitional period on
| this tech, so I think there's value in defining "how"
| automatic the experience is.
| ghaff wrote:
| It seems a fairly reasonable set of levels. For example, L4
| seems like something that may be achievable in the
| foreseeable future if it means something like full autonomy
| on designated interstates in some weather conditions. That
| actually sounds like something that would be very useful for
| a lot of people (and probably a big safety benefit). It just
| doesn't do anything about eliminating private car ownership
| or the need to be able to drive at all. But, personally,
| those are of less interest to me anyway.
| xirbeosbwo1234 wrote:
| >Tesla is leagues ahead if I'm not mistaken
|
| You are. Pretty much every other manufacturer offers adaptive
| cruise control, lane keeping, and the like. They're just honest
| about their capabilities.
| SECProto wrote:
| Comparing Tesla's "full self driving" features to adaptive
| cruise control or lanekeeping is a very dishonest
| representation of the capabilities.
|
| edit: I'm pretty anti-Tesla (strongly dislike the focus on
| the central screen and other driver-hostile 'features', don't
| think "full self driving" should be advertised as such, etc).
| But I still think their capabilities are significantly above
| the other car manufacturers enough that they shouldn't be
| directly compared in that way. But I guess readers like the
| fact that calling them "adaptive cruise control" and "active
| lanekeeping" is more accurate and much less bullshitty than
| Tesla.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| Tesla doesn't have full self driving yet. For the core
| autopilot features, reviews I've seen of GM SuperCruise
| rate it ahead of Tesla for lane-keeping and adaptive cruise
| control. The other advanced features that Tesla offers -
| navigation on AP and summon - are not much more than parlor
| tricks. I say this as a Tesla driver with access to those
| features on my car ...
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > The bus I commute on went under, and I can't be trusted to
| drive 120 miles a day and keep my speed in check.
|
| I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest part of the problem
| here is a 60 mile commute twice a day. That's an absurd
| distance to drive for a job.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| Totally agree but I serve two masters; both of which treat me
| very well--so not only is the commute the worst part of my
| day, it's also the only negative part of the day.
| triceratops wrote:
| Are you certain you've considered all the negatives of a 60
| mile commute? I'd encourage you to read this:
| https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-
| of-...
| kortilla wrote:
| That analysis is pretty fatally flawed (at least for
| software jobs). When I was at google you could easily get
| by on working 6 hours in the office and commuting an hour
| each way. The housing cost difference was obscene and
| would easily offset the cost of a new car every other
| year.
|
| Like most Money Mustache article's the analysis looks
| sound because "numbers" but the numbers have a bunch of
| fucked assumptions to reach them.
| triceratops wrote:
| > That analysis is pretty fatally flawed (at least for
| software jobs)
|
| > When I was at google
|
| So it's fatally flawed if you work at Google (or another
| high-paying tech company) as a SWE in Silicon Valley -
| which is a minuscule fraction of the working population
| of software engineers. It may not be the assumptions in
| the article that are "fucked". You might just be an edge
| case.
|
| > The housing cost difference was obscene and would
| easily offset the cost of a new car every other year.
|
| It's not just the cost of a new car. It's also the time
| and energy lost to the commute, the increased risk of a
| serious accident, the opportunity cost of all that time
| spent in traffic.
|
| As a SWE working at a big tech company in Silicon Valley,
| I've done pretty well financially by avoiding long
| commutes - and had lots more spare time. There's more
| than one way to skin a cat.
| kortilla wrote:
| > You might just be an edge case.
|
| Yeah, aka the assumption is fucked. This dude cranks out
| shit on his blog as if it's based on some objective stuff
| but realistically it's a bunch of evidence based on his
| lifestyle.
|
| > It's not just the cost of a new car. It's also the time
| and energy lost to the commute, the increased risk of a
| serious accident, the opportunity cost of all that time
| spent in traffic.
|
| That's the flaw again. "Time and energy" is not lost in a
| commute unless you waste it. If you are a competent SWE,
| you should be able to spend that time thinking about
| architecture, design plans, algorithms, data flows, UX,
| and on and on. Not to mention you can keep up on industry
| podcasts, industry news, and a bunch of other audio only
| shit.
|
| BTW, "increased risk of a serious accident" is yet
| another misunderstanding of a stat. "Deaths per million
| miles" in the US is a general stat averaged across
| commuters, drunk drivers, poor driving conditions, old
| cars, and bad roads.
|
| I'd posit that my chance of death putting along on the
| 101 at 20-30 mph during rush hour in a car with modern
| safety features for an entire year was lower than on a
| single night on a two lane road up in Sonoma on the
| weekend.
|
| All driving is not equal, and that's just one of the many
| mistakes the money mustache blog makes. I'm all for
| promoting objective analysis of costs, but it needs to be
| done on a case-by-case basis. Trying to make general
| financial advice based on averages is as much folly as
| trying to make a shirt that fits everyone by sizing it to
| the average.
| triceratops wrote:
| > If you are a competent SWE, you should be able to spend
| that time thinking about architecture, design plans,
| algorithms, data flows, UX, and on and on. Not to mention
| you can keep up on industry podcasts, industry news, and
| a bunch of other audio only shit.
|
| I do all of that during my workouts and walks, or while
| cooking my family a healthy dinner. All of which I have
| time to do because I'm not spending 2 hours/day "putting
| along on the 101 at 20-30mph". On top of saving a ton of
| money and helping the environment, it's better for my
| health and my stress levels, because I'm not swearing at
| the 10th person to jump the queue at the exit. Before WFH
| started I was in far better shape than my colleagues who
| commuted from 1.5 hours away because they could get more
| house for less money.
|
| Long commutes are a destroyer of health, wealth,
| happiness, and the environment. They steal time from our
| lives, with our children and families and friends - the
| only non-renewable asset we have.
| loceng wrote:
| What work do you do - if you don't mind me asking?
| zhdc1 wrote:
| > I can't be trusted to drive 120 miles a day and keep my speed
| in check
|
| If it's a matter of occasionally going over or under the speed
| limit (or if the speed limit on your route has sudden changes),
| you may want to look into getting a vehicle with a manual speed
| limiter. That, along with something like Waze, can be a big
| help.
| eganist wrote:
| I believe Jag and Land Rover (same company) both have this,
| and it's immensely helpful. It's basically the inverse of
| cruise: rather than setting a speed floor that the car
| cruises at, it sets a speed ceiling that you can't exceed
| (unless you push through the kickdown on the throttle in some
| cars with a limiter, in which case the car assumes an
| emergent circumstance and bypasses the limiter for that
| circumstance)
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| My wife's bmw has it too--but that's too easy to disengage.
| Needing to pull over and get out to change the limiter
| would cool any road rage. I should have said: I'm willing
| to accept a longer commute and up to twice as costly
| autonomous vehicle over the alternative which is me having
| to pay attention and frustrated for 60 minutes twice a day
| ---even once a week!
| gjs278 wrote:
| you're a weirdo. driving is not that hard. billions of
| people can handle it. get your head checked.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it's hard for me to see how this would be more safe.
| sometimes safety is best served by exceeding the speed
| limit. this is actually not uncommon. for example, a semi
| has pulled up next to me on the interstate and a turn is
| coming up. there is a car right behind me so I can't just
| hit the brakes and let the truck pull ahead. I really
| don't want to be right next to a semi during the turn, so
| I quickly accelerate past it.
| magnusmundus wrote:
| IME BMWs have a rather ambiguous hair-trigger to
| disengage the speed limiter, unlike some other makes
| where you would need to push the gas pedal to kickdown
| (with the obvious tactile bump) for the same. I think
| that might be skewing GP's view.
|
| Losing the ability to change the limit or (dis)engage at
| will makes the feature practically useless too,
| considering the various speed limit zones one goes
| through in one drive -- not to mention dynamic speed
| limits based on weather and other conditions.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Yup. Especially in my Jaguar, which has a lot of HP (~500),
| and active cabin noise-canceling and air ride suspension,
| and it is very easy to find yourself at quite high speeds.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Tesla has that too (speed limit mode).
| zhdc1 wrote:
| I think a lot of new cars come with it. Both of ours did,
| and it wasn't something we looked for.
| [deleted]
| effingwewt wrote:
| Or you know, cruise control.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Always nice to see people that still believe in the government
| to act competently. I mean really, we can't even maintain the
| roads. There's no way we'll be able to pull off some next level
| plan, let alone execute it in a reasonable timeframe. There's a
| fundamental breakdown that's happened somewhere in the past 50
| years that's lead to the inability to properly manage the
| country's infrastructure and this doesn't just apply to roads.
| Is it a leadership issue? Self-serving corruption? I don't
| know, but what we have now is certainly broken.
| burlesona wrote:
| Not in the last five years, but gradually over the last 40 or
| so. The reason is essentially that we've been building road
| networks that cost more to maintain than they generate in tax
| revenue, and thus our infrastructure balance sheet is running
| more and more negative. We're very poor compared to the
| balance sheets governments in the US operated on as recently
| as the 1950s.
| hanniabu wrote:
| > Not in the last five years, but gradually over the last
| 40 or so
|
| Thanks for pointing that out. I meant 50, just edited
| random5634 wrote:
| I've thought this would be great for longer runs. Put a wire in
| the road or something for the vehicles to follow. Once you are
| on the wire some protocol for merge points (also marked on the
| wire) etc.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| This is one of the options, have radar on board pointing down
| to follow the line, sensors are each end of the car...
| zapita wrote:
| You're in luck. The Democratic majority in US congress has just
| announced yesterday that their next priority after passing the
| American Rescue Act will be a national infrastructure plan.
|
| https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1370488211034755072
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Like, "shovel ready jobs" ?
| avsteele wrote:
| There is only one salient question: per-mile is the danger of
| Tesla's FSD more or less than not using it?
|
| All other questions are second order, and almost besides the
| point unless we have reason to suspect regulation of self-driving
| will be more efficacious than other safety regs.
|
| Now, I've seen stats either way, but this article doesn't even
| address it. So what are people taking away from it?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Per highway mile or per sunshine mile or luxury sedan mile or
| per what kind of mile driven by whom when and where? You have
| to be incredibly careful to compare like miles. If you just
| compare per mile Tesla on autopilot to per mile everything
| else, it's a dishonest comparison.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| _For that particular driver_
|
| If the same amount of people die except it's nuns and orphan
| busses instead of drunks and other unsafe drivers then the
| "good" drivers odds just went the wrong way.
| twirlock wrote:
| >democrats win office >all the millennial cringe bloggers start
| shitting smear pieces and propaganda again and just genetalky
| being reddit Hm
| ablekh wrote:
| I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to use
| the term _Full Self Driving_ (FSD) to imply, that is advertise,
| something that clearly is not and will not be in the near(est)
| future. Where is FTC, which is supposed to protect and enforce
| _truth in advertising_ in the U.S. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-
| events/media-resources/truth-advert...)? Especially considering
| that relevant false advertising (in terms of the naming / use of
| the FSD term, not the actual feature set) clearly can negatively
| affect the driver's judgement on manually controlling a car in
| various situations and, thus, ultimately, the safety of the
| driver and passengers.
| morty_s wrote:
| Oof yeah. I really like what's Tesla is doing. I love my model
| y, but I definitely skipped out on "$10k more for FSD." It's
| just not there yet.
|
| Do I think people need to step in and force Tesla to dial back
| their advertisement, eh... idk, maybe, maybe yes?
|
| To me, it's pretty clear what "FSD" gets you these days
| (spoilers: not a lot). I suspect the average Tesla customer can
| also read. I also think reckless drivers will be reckless
| regardless of law or guidelines.
|
| I think the increasing price for "FSD" and calling it fsd is
| all marketing designed to get people to FOMO into it (knowing
| that it might take a while).
|
| What I would like to know is, if I pay "10k for FSD Someday"
| will this be applied to a future Tesla I buy that will actually
| be capable of FSD?
| ericd wrote:
| It's not transferable to a new car, FYI. Also, the FSD beta
| is supposedly opening imminently to almost everyone who's
| bought the package and wants to try it.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Probably because of the small print/legalese.
|
| _The currently enabled features require active driver
| supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The
| activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving
| reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by
| billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory
| approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these
| self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously
| upgraded through over-the-air software updates._
| garmaine wrote:
| That doesn't matter. You don't get claim something which is
| clearly false in commonsensical interpretation, but get away
| with it because the fine print.
|
| You can't say "the sky is green[1]" and then in footnote [1]
| say "by green, we mean blue." That's not allowed, and the FTC
| is supposed to prosecute this. You _can_ say "the sky is
| cerulean[1]" and then note that although cerulean can be
| categorized as either green or blue, in this context you mean
| blue. But calling the feature "full self driving" when it is
| not full self driving is more akin to outright calling the
| sky green.
| ablekh wrote:
| I understand it. That is why I have emphasized above ( _" in
| terms of the naming / use of the FSD term, not the actual
| feature set"_) that, regardless of the small print / legalese
| / disclaimers / clarifications etc., I believe that using
| confusing and not matching current capabilities terms should
| not be allowed. I might be wrong (as I'm not a lawyer), but I
| think that it is well within FTC's jurisdiction and power to
| enforce _both truthfulness and clarity_ of advertising in the
| U.S.
| saganus wrote:
| I wonder if they could try to switch to something like
| "Fully-assisted Self Driving" to keep the original FSD
| accronym, if the term ends up being regulated.
| ablekh wrote:
| Use of an acronym requires a prior use of a relevant
| definition (spell out), which is _the_ term. The
| expression "Fully-assisted Self Driving" is no less
| incorrect / ambiguous than the original one. Therefore,
| Tesla would continue violating the same principle of
| truth and clarity in advertising as well as, perhaps,
| some policies and/or laws.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Not to mention the Term "Full Self Driving" was
| originally created to disambiguate "self driving", which
| may still require driver assistance. FSD was sold as a
| robotaxi software that could make you money while you
| sleep, while it has always been nothing more than a level
| 2 system, as Tesla admits in the fine print and to
| regulators. Musk on Twitter contradicts this
| consistently.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| FSD also mentioned/implied that driver assistance could
| be required, but did mention/omply that it should be good
| enough for someone to take a trip without intervention.
| Practically speaking it's just a larger feature set than
| EAP/AP.
|
| Edit - Here's a link to the old FSD fine print. They say
| the system is designed to take trips with no input from
| the driver, but they don't guarantee that, which to
| implies FSD is just meant to be good level 2 driver
| assistance.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20180806143159/https://www.te
| sla...
|
| To be fair, Tesla could consider stuff like TACC to be
| level 3+ (no beta status, no disclaimer about always
| paying attention, etc), but it's definitely not level 4
| because they require driver input and nag then disable
| without it.
|
| The robotaxi/Tesla network idea was separate from EAP/AP
| and FSD and was only mentioned on the Tesla website for a
| short period of time with even more fine print/legalese
| (it was pie in the sky, which I imagine is why they took
| it down).
| fma wrote:
| Someone can successfully sue Subway for advertising a
| footlong sub that isn't always 12"...but Tesla and
| FSD...slapping fine print lets them off the hook...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| That lawsuit wasn't successful, partially because Subway's
| use of the term "footlong" is not supposed to be taken as
| literally a foot long.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| What? Of course it is! That's why the bread is almost
| exactly a foot.
|
| It's not supposed to be precise down to the millimeter,
| but it's quite literal.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| No, it is the name of Subway's trademark(pending?)
| sandwich. Logic has no place in this conversation.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Are you telling me it's a coincidence or are you doing a
| bit?
|
| If you're making fun of the idea, I still don't get it,
| because it's not like subway was trying to make them
| _not_ be 12 inches.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I am accurately describing Subway's legal position when
| challenged on the length of their footlong sandwiches. A
| legalese definition of footlong.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's blatantly not Subway's _actual_ position, though.
|
| When did they make that claim, since it's not in either
| of the linked articles as far as I can tell?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| https://nypost.com/2013/01/19/subway-explains-shortness-
| of-t...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| A facebook post. I see.
|
| And that was immediately followed up by a sentence
| talking very reasonably about slight loaf-to-loaf
| variation, which is the real argument being made there
| and elsewhere and in court.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The actual lawsuit never went to court, they settled and
| then the settlement was overturned, and my claim was just
| that this definition was part of the reason the suit
| didn't work. What more are you expecting out of this?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| A judge ruled on it, so there were definitely things
| being said in court.
|
| > What more are you expecting out of this?
|
| I expect that "legal position" means something put out by
| a lawyer, not a facebook post.
|
| I expect that the actions the company takes and the
| things their lawyers say take precedence over a facebook
| post.
|
| I expect that if it's presented as an important reason
| subway gives then it shouldn't be taken out of context.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >judge ruled on it, so there were definitely things being
| said in court
|
| The judge ruled on the settlement, nor the actual merits
| of the case.
|
| I only called it their legal argument as you did not
| understand what I was saying, I probably could have
| worded that better. It was their stated position on the
| issue, and is very similar to the "fully self driving"
| being discussed.
|
| I am done with this, if you want to think I oversold
| Subway's claim, I disagree but fine.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > It was their stated position on the issue, and is very
| similar to the "fully self driving" being discussed.
|
| I think if people were pulling "fully self driving" out
| of some random facebook post that discusses the
| capabilities in the next sentence, then the complaint
| would be something to sigh at and ignore.
| totalZero wrote:
| I invite anyone who is interested in learning about the
| arguments, as I was, to check out this article:
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2016/02/29/why-
| the-...
| azinman2 wrote:
| I'm shocked they even settled. Probably they felt it was
| the cheapest action, but such a lawsuit feels quite
| predatory. An important legal concept is harms done, and
| as this Forbes article points out, there really weren't
| any material harms done.
|
| Now Tesla on the other hand, absolutely falls into the
| realm of material harms done...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The settlement was later thrown out I think, I have no
| idea why they agreed to it either
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-subway-decision-
| footlong-...
| slavik81 wrote:
| They're labeled as 6" and 12" on the menu. What does 12"
| mean if not twelve inches?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Judging by their website, the menu labels them "six inch"
| and "footlong."
| slavik81 wrote:
| This is the menu I remember seeing in person:
| http://subwayniagara.com/images/2017-NOV-MENU-
| SIGNATURE.jpg
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I'm unsure if that's Canadian labeling requirements or
| that local stores choice, but I checked their US official
| online menu before my reply.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > I don't understand why Tesla has been and still is allowed to
| use the term Full Self Driving (FSD) to imply, that is
| advertise, something that clearly is not and will not be in the
| near(est) future.
|
| Peter Thiel's support for Donald Trump, alongside the army of
| Musketeers, continues to pay dividends, I guess.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| What blows my mind is that this promotional Tesla video[1] has
| been online for almost 5 years, with this claim in the video
| description:
|
| > _The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal
| reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself._
|
| [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving-
| hardware...
| [deleted]
| xedeon wrote:
| > The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal
| reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.
|
| I mean, they are not completely wrong. Although not perfect.
| FSD Beta is still pretty impressive. There's no denying that:
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d9nwpjgtt4
|
| 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfabe-gxgQ
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Their video is from 2016, yours is from the last six
| months.
|
| "FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was
| emphatically not full self-driving[0], hasn't been around
| for the vast majority of time that that video has been
| online so using it as an excuse is disingenuous. Plus
| Tesla's own words in their emails disprove this anyway.
|
| [0] https://www.plainsite.org/documents/242a2g/california-
| dmv-te...
| xedeon wrote:
| I suggest you research who is behind the site you just
| linked and what their agenda is.
|
| The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb
| 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months".
|
| Here's one from 5 days ago (Mar 8, 2021):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafOEZrKZ1c
| jsjohnst wrote:
| You should re-read the comment you are responding to. Dec
| 2020 and Feb 2021 and March 2021 are all "from [within]
| the last six months". I added a word to make it more
| clear, but it was obvious the intent GP had.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > I suggest you research who is behind the site you just
| linked and what their agenda is.
|
| I linked to a raw PDF inside a viewer containing Tesla/CA
| DMV's emails directly from a FOIA request-response. Are
| you claiming the site forged these emails?
|
| > The videos that I linked are also from Dec 2020 and Feb
| 2021 respectively. Not from "from the last six months".
|
| That's literally within the last six months..? Pointing
| out that they're even newer only strengthens my case that
| comparing them to a 2016 video is disingenuous.
| xedeon wrote:
| > FSD Beta," which incidentally they told CA DMV was
| emphatically not full self-driving[0]
|
| Have you read the actual definition of what constitutes
| as an autonomous mode/autonomous vehicles. As defined by
| California law?
|
| From CA SB-1298 [1]:
|
| 38750. (a) For purposes of this division, the following
| definitions apply:
|
| (1) "Autonomous technology" means technology that has the
| capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical
| control or monitoring by a human operator.
|
| Autopilot and FSD Beta requires a human to supervise it.
| In fact, it requires you to respond to the prompts and
| will actually disable itself for the rest of the drive if
| you keep ignoring it.
|
| Here is Tesla's response to the CA DMV's query:
|
| "Currently neither Autopilot nor FSD Capability is an
| autonomous system, and currently no comprising feature,
| whether singularly or collectively, is autonomous or
| makes our vehicles autonomous."
|
| From what I can interpret. It doesn't fit CA DMV's own
| definition. Making Tesla's statement factually correct.
|
| If you don't think that's the case. How so? I'm curious
| how you see it differently.
|
| [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClien
| t.xhtml...
| Animats wrote:
| Tesla is not allowed to do that in Europe.[1] In the US, they
| got away with a lot during the Trump administration. That seems
| to be changing. From the NTSB statement:
|
| _" The success of these AVs depends on the driver completing a
| monitoring task that requires sustained attention; however,
| humans generally perform poorly in the role of monitor. Also,
| if the automated control system behaves consistently and
| reliably for prolonged periods, the user of that system can
| become complacent about its operation and may not respond
| appropriately when a situation requires him or her to act."_
|
| The NTSB people see this clearly because they investigate
| aviation accidents. Over reliance on automation is a known
| problem in aviation. The aviation systems are pretty good, but
| they are not yet good enough to be the pilot in command. Pilot
| training covers this in detail. Drivers are not trained that
| way.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/tesla-autopilot-self-
| driving...
| prox wrote:
| That creates a strange situation where a monitor would need
| more training vs a driving license? Or would that require an
| overhaul of the training itself?
| neltnerb wrote:
| I think that's not especially strange when these partially
| automated systems aren't fully autonomous yet.
|
| I would have a hard time arguing against requiring a few
| hours of class time learning about exactly what the systems
| do and what pitfalls there are because those things are not
| at all like what anyone has ever been taught in drivers ed
| before.
| Animats wrote:
| Yes. Again, _" If the automated control system behaves
| consistently and reliably for prolonged periods, the user
| of that system can become complacent about its operation
| and may not respond appropriately when a situation
| requires him or her to act."_ That's what led to the
| accidents where a Tesla plowed into a freeway divide
| barrier (California), a street sweeper (China), a parked
| van (Germany), a fire truck (California), a semitrailer
| (Florida), an overturned truck (Taiwan) ...
|
| There's a certain similarity to Tesla autopilot crashes.
| Everything was going just great until Tesla's automated
| system failed to detect a big solid obstacle. Tesla
| drivers need to be very aware of that failure mode.
|
| It's amazing that Tesla is allowed to ship that. It's
| Musk's "we don't need LIDAR, we'll just kill people
| instead".
| airhead969 wrote:
| 100% natural, cage-free, hormone-free self-driving.
|
| Or as George Carlin called it: bullshit.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond even
| basic driver assistance. I'd buy a well built car with good
| battery tech and a decent cruise control and never look back. I
| don't mind driving for another 20 years if the car is reliable
| and has good enough range. Making my car clever is so far down
| on my car wishlist it's not even visible. The elephant in the
| room is that even if there are _technological_ breakthroughs
| shortenig "FSD" from perhaps my pessismistic guess of 50 years
| to an almost laghably optimistic 20 years, the legal mess it
| will be stuck in will be at least as long as the technical one
| was. Tesla seem to make very competitive cars even without
| wasting money on self-driving ones. I'd try to keep that spot
| instead of risking it by going down the FSD rabbit hole.
| tw04 wrote:
| They already make that? FSD is an optional upgrade.
|
| While I would agree the FSD path is a dangerous one, if they
| crack it they also instantly justify their share price.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I'm thinking they must be using a nontrivial fraction of
| their budget to develop self-driving tech. Money that could
| be used for advancing the advantage they already have. I
| think the fruitless pursuit of self driving will be what
| makes boring cars from traditional manufacturers catch up.
| Assuming no manufacturer reaches true full FSD within say
| 25-50 years, and the usable returns of such research
| diminishes, then the winning play would be spending as
| little as possible on it.
| ericd wrote:
| I don't think they're very bottlenecked by available
| money at this point.
| marvin wrote:
| It's not obvious that Tesla's FSD program will fail. If
| it succeeds, the investment will have done exactly what
| you describe - advancing the advantage Tesla already has.
| jsight wrote:
| Yep, and they appear to be doing it for less money than
| their competitors too.
| XorNot wrote:
| There's a strong tendency in the tech world - and
| elsewhere but less so - to point to failures as an
| absolute proof something won't work, and to similarly use
| early successes as overly strong signals of viability.
|
| An example of this would be the "obvious" superiority of
| micro-kernel OS designs compared to monoliths. Which is
| not at all how things actually panned out with Linux -
| but the problem was never about the architectural choice,
| it was about the fact that OS designs are hard - and you
| need to do the work to solve all the little problems
| which crop up with your big idea.
|
| FSD is essentially going through the same thing, but the
| stakes are higher - FSD can _kill_ people as a basic part
| of its function. We were always in a countdown till we
| started getting the first self-driving casualties.
|
| This is not of course to suggest that what Tesla is doing
| right now is okay, but I'd sure be cautious trying to
| read the winner of the next 20 years into it.
| [deleted]
| codeulike wrote:
| Tesla and SpaceX both take huge gambles on innovation.
| Thats kindof the point of both companies existence. Yes
| the FSD initiative could fail in many ways. Starship
| might be a dead end. Innovation is a gamble.
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| Tesla doesn't care what you (the individual) want. They care
| about increasing the size of their addressable market
| (elderly folks who can't drive don't buy cars - but they
| might if the cars could drive themselves). They care about
| driving up the average transaction price (not everyone spends
| every penny they can on their car - but they might if they
| could sleep in it while commuting/roadtripping). They care
| about creating recurring revenue sources. Once you buy a
| traditional car that's that. But if your car gets rented out
| as a robotaxi on Tesla's network, then Tesla gets a cut.
|
| I agree though. At the moment I'd rather just have a solid
| car with good adaptive cruise control.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > They care about increasing the size of their addressable
| market (elderly folks who can't drive don't buy cars - but
| they might if the cars could drive themselves).
|
| How many elderly folks care about sub 4 second 0-60s times?
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| That's 4s could mean much safer highway merging.
| Especially from those on-ramps with stop light to control
| merge flow.
| ablekh wrote:
| > I don't understand why they even attempt to push beyond
| even basic driver assistance.
|
| Well, this is, actually, quite understandable. Tesla and many
| investors in the company, especially Cathy Wood and her ARK
| Invest, assume high correlation between Tesla's future
| success or even survival with the success of the company's
| autonomous driving strategy, which, they argue, could win the
| lion's share of the global robo-taxi, robo-delivery and ride-
| hailing markets (with selling a relevant subscription service
| to future owners of FSD-enabled Tesla vehicles being IMO a
| secondary and insignificant revenue stream). This can be
| easily illustrated by reviewing some of the relevant ARK's
| open research materials[1-4]. Elsewhere on the Internet, a
| notable coverage of FSD that I'm aware of (though I haven't
| yet had a chance to review) is provided by Tesla investor and
| popular YouTube blogger Dave Lee, who offers multiple - as of
| today, I've counted five of them - detailed video interviews
| on Tesla's FSD on his YouTube channel "Dave Lee on
| Investing"[5].
|
| [1] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-
| ride-...
|
| [2] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/ride-
| hailin...
|
| [3] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-
| research/autonomous-...
|
| [4] https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/tesla-
| price...
|
| [5] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi2G5aQTN0YwGIfnt1u7Nbg
| dehrmann wrote:
| > assume high correlation between Tesla's future success or
| even survival with the success of the company's autonomous
| driving strategy, which, they argue, could win the lion's
| share of the global robo-taxi, robo-delivery and ride-
| hailing markets
|
| Except Waymo has better tech, is working toward a similar
| goal, and has a stronger balance sheet. Google has a
| history of dropping the ball on opportunities, but unlike
| cloud computing, they're already a leader in this space.
|
| People want Tesla to succeed and like the company's story,
| but it basically requires every other automaker to fail in
| order to justify its valuation. Or Bitcoin to hit $500k.
| ablekh wrote:
| I agree with you on major points. Tesla proponents'
| ignorance of competition (both technical and general /
| market share) is difficult to comprehend. Re: Bitcoin - I
| disagree, it is a totally different story, but it's off-
| topic / outside of the scope here.
| random314 wrote:
| Tesla did buy 1.5B$ bitcoins, so ..
| ablekh wrote:
| You're right, see my comment above.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| I believe the comment refers to the fact that Tesla
| bought a lot of bitcoins. So for their current valuation
| to make sense, either they have to succeed in
| monopolizing the auto market, or their bitcoins have to
| go up a lot in value.
| ericd wrote:
| It doesn't make sense, though, their 1.5B investment
| would go up to maybe $15-20B.
| ablekh wrote:
| You're right. I somehow misinterpreted that part of the
| comment. Having said that, I doubt that Tesla's Bitcoin
| investment could be a foundation for its current
| valuation (as of today, > $660B). The $500K BTC price
| implies ~10x growth, so the value of that $1.5B
| investment would equal to ~$15B, which is still far less
| than the target number.
| ericd wrote:
| BTC is within 10x of $500k, so you're right, it doesn't
| make sense.
| ablekh wrote:
| Thank you. Fixed my math.
| ximeng wrote:
| Another alternative is that they use success in ramping
| up the car business to raise capital for investment in
| other on shore advanced manufacturing. The market they go
| for may not just be cars.
| effingwewt wrote:
| Indeed wasn't Germany the first to stop them from pulling this
| shit? We in the US allow our advertisers to lie to us about
| any- and everything, and they wonder why we hate advertising in
| general.
|
| Maybe we need to stop getting mad at the method and start
| getting mad at the companies doing the lying.
|
| I've said repeatedly I was ready to leave this country, but
| only in the last 2 years have I begun actually making plans to
| leave.
|
| I'm voting with my feet, but where to go? Shouldn't take years
| of careful planning to just up and go somewhere else.
| ipsocannibal wrote:
| Having driven a Model Y and a Model 3 I can say that until Tesla
| removes that huge ass distraction magnet touchscreen from their
| vehicles I won't buy one. In order to determine anything about
| the status of the vehicle or change a setting you have to train
| all of your attention off of the road and onto an overly
| complicated cellphone interface. Autopliot is an optional
| feature, that damn tablet is not. Adding a simple HUD that comes
| standard on most Mazda's would be a huge improvement in safety.
| airhead969 wrote:
| There's something to be said for manual switches and gauges.
|
| Another case in point: F-35.
|
| _Please swipe up and to the left to apply the brakes or draw a
| peace symbol if you 'd like to eject instead of dying._ -
| megacorp UX of the future
| moduspol wrote:
| Does this need to be in literally every thread about Tesla?
|
| Is there any evidence at all that this is the impairment of
| safety opponents claim? Model 3s have been sold in large
| numbers since 2018. Are drivers crashing into other cars at
| higher rates? Or are we just going to keep beating this dead
| horse?
| TheDong wrote:
| They might have slightly higher fatality rates than other
| "luxury sedans", but seem to be safer than the average car
| (which includes older models on the road that don't have
| active collision avoidance features or such).
|
| https://www.tesladeaths.com/#FAQ
|
| Note that I say "they might" because tesladeaths.com is
| probably overcounting slightly. It's created by a group of
| short sellers, and the IIHS may count fewer incidents for
| other cars.
|
| Until the IIHS releases properly comparable numbers
| themselves, it's hard to say for sure.
| moduspol wrote:
| > Note that I say "they might" because tesladeaths.com is
| probably overcounting slightly.
|
| More than slightly, and that includes far more than just
| the ones where the touchscreen replaced nearly all controls
| not on the steering pedestal (Model 3, Y).
|
| I don't know how many years have to go by without
| supporting evidence before we can move on from these
| claims. More than three, apparently, and despite other
| manufacturers making the same shift toward touchscreens.
| schrijver wrote:
| > Is there any evidence at all that this is the impairment of
| safety opponents claim?
|
| This came out this week:
|
| > A study measuring the affects of driver distraction
| suggests using a dashboard touchscreen is up to four times
| worse than being at the UK's drink-drive alcohol limit.
|
| https://www.tu-auto.com/touchscreen-infotainment-four-
| times-...
| moduspol wrote:
| If I'm reading that study correctly, it's measuring when
| drivers actually operate the touchscreen while driving.
| That's a bit different from driving a car that happens to
| have one.
|
| Every Model 3 has one, and they've been made in large
| numbers since 2018. It seems like we'd have the numbers by
| now if it were the threat it's claimed to be.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| You need to operate the touchscreen while driving in
| order to turn on the windshield wipers.
| jiofih wrote:
| The UI on that touchscreen is very different from the
| average car touchscreen. Bigger and ridiculously more
| responsive. The wipers are accessible in two quick
| touches: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rr_XzzJ6gc
|
| I'm pretty sure you can operate it with voice commands as
| well, and the click wheel in the 3?
|
| That said, why would you not leave it on auto? I own a
| normal car and don't touch the dashboard at all during
| 98% of drives, everything is set to auto (wipers, lights,
| AC).
| dfinninger wrote:
| Yep, voice commands work.
|
| Also, It's not the click wheel, it's the left stalk in
| the 3/Y. And touching the button on the stalk brings up
| the part of the UI that controls the wipers. I can reach
| it with my pinky while my hand is on the wheel.
|
| To your point, I've never taken it off auto. I just hit
| the button on the stalk every now and again to get an
| extra wipe/clean.
| moduspol wrote:
| False.
|
| The wipers engage automatically by default. If you
| disable that, you can push the button at the end of the
| stalk to wipe once, or adjust via voice commands. But
| yes, you can also use the touchscreen.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Yeah, my experience with the Model 3's touch screen is that
| it's really good at displaying the information you need at a
| glance and that, while driving, very little interaction with
| it is necessary: the sticks and steering wheel controls do
| nearly everything you need while driving.
| moduspol wrote:
| Perhaps, but every thread needs the comments from someone
| who rode in one / test drove it once and just can't wrap
| their head around how it can be driven without staring at
| the screen. Even to those of us who have driven them every
| day for years.
|
| It was tired when the car first came out, but at least it
| was a valid concern. Now it just feels like an
| unwillingness to accept reality.
| mdoms wrote:
| > Does this need to be in literally every thread about Tesla?
|
| If the thread is about safety, yes.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I took a test drive in an S a few years ago, and also found the
| interior ugly and the infotainment system lacking. The sales
| guy was pushing the car hard with misdirection and
| deceptions[0][1], even calling me days later. Eventually I had
| just tell them to stop calling and told them exactly why I'd
| never buy the car.
|
| [0] "It has a streaming service like Pandora!" "Is it Pandora?"
| "It's Sketcher. It's like Pandora!" "So it's not Pandora."
| "No."
|
| [1] "This car has full self driving." "So is it going to turn
| here?" "No. It has FSD capability, but it's not on because of
| regulatory approval. It should be here in a year to two." (That
| was four years ago.)
| sanp wrote:
| And their shitty build quality. Even a model x has the fit and
| finish of a cheap Korean car from 10 years ago
| BluSyn wrote:
| Never going to happen. Some of us are the opposite, I can't
| stand cars with a thousand nobs and dials that take a 100 page
| manual to understand. I find the clutter 100x more distracting.
| prepend wrote:
| The choice isn't between a touchscreen and a thousand knobs.
|
| My current car, a random 5 year old sedan has about 4-5 knobs
| on the console I use- volume, heated seats, ac mode,
| temperature, and nav knob that rotates, pushes in, and pushed
| in 4 directions.
|
| I can do all this without taking my eyes off the road.
|
| I also have an 8 inch touchscreen that I never use because
| it's too hard while driving.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Can you explain how buttons are a distraction? Also, by
| "distracting", do you mean that the present of physical knobs
| prevent you from paying attention to the road?
| jsight wrote:
| He can't explain that any more than the OP can explain why
| having the speedometer slightly to the right is more
| distracting than hidden behind the steering wheel.
| ctdonath wrote:
| If you reach for a button and it's not exactly where your
| finger lands, you're now distracted by figuring out where
| it is and/or why something unexpected happened. Doesn't
| help that some buttons physically stick and reluctantly
| disengage. Half the buttons allegedly do something, but
| they're useless or pointless. Some have indicator lights
| one must have reason to look at before noticing (oh, the
| "dual heat mode" got enabled? is that why the HVAC has been
| fighting itself and can't decide whether to heat or cool?
| defrost is stuck on, and wife is freaking out that it's too
| hot/cold/something in here and doesn't understand how to
| stop it?)
|
| My car's "infotainment" system is so bad I've given up on
| it. When working with a phone, the sound is good - but
| rattling thru menus via buttons on multiple surfaces, never
| quite knowing what some of the terms mean (because I'm
| focused on the road, not on sorting out "MEDIA SOURCE" vs
| "INPUT SOURCE" in context of connecting Bluetooth or
| whatever), and having to literally alternate between sound
| unit face and the "OK" button on the steering wheel, well
| just forget it we're using the phone's own speakers
| (relatively lousy but they work). There's a speech
| recognition system in there too, but that goes nowhere
| (first, memorize all the possible commands it recognizes;
| next, say the phrases just right in a noisy & distracting
| environment...).
|
| Yeah, physical buttons/knobs are distracting too. At least
| a touchscreen system can better present/organize
| information, and likely comes with a viable speech
| recognition system. And can sanely interface to a phone via
| Bluetooth.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but none of this
| explains how a touchscreen is superior to physical
| buttons.
|
| If you hand misses a physical button, you easily orient
| yourself by recognizing the shape of the and relative
| location of the button by touch, whereas a mistouch on
| screen might have activated some functionality, or at the
| very least is harder to orient without looking because
| there are no physical features.
|
| While OEM infotainment systems universally suck, it's a
| non sequitur to say that a touchscreen fixes any of these
| issues, in particular your Bluetooth and voice problems.
| My Acura has a touchscreen and voice and it sucks. The
| voice is slow to respond with constant boilerplate
| announcements, and the typing addresses into the gps is
| painful, even when using autocomplete (it animates the
| typing, and then forces you to reconfirm the completed
| text.)
| ctdonath wrote:
| "Why is touchscreen better" wasn't the question. Point,
| directed at parent post, is buttons aren't inherently
| better.
|
| Touch and voice control can be improved with an overnight
| software update.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I realize most people don't actually do this, but imo it's
| pretty irresponsible to drive around in a 1.5+ ton vehicle
| without taking the time to RTFM, regardless of how
| complicated it is.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-14 23:03 UTC)